Why not make them out of a nickle alloy and deem them to be $1 trillion each? Same effect and save even more money. Most people wouldn't know the difference looking at them. Hell, the nickle alloy would be shinier.

Yes, why waste good platinum?

How about a handwritten I.O.U.?

Nickels actually are the best coinage you can get to fend off hyper-inflated currency.

If folks in Zimbabwe had their money in nickels instead of paper currency ($100 trillion dollar notes?) they would have been okay... (A nickel is worth 6.5 cents. A copper penny (1982 and before) is worth about 3.5 cents.)

Why not make them out of a nickle alloy and deem them to be $1 trillion each? Same effect and save even more money. Most people wouldn't know the difference looking at them. Hell, the nickle alloy would be shinier.

You have a point, but let's face it, nickle just doesn't sound as impressive as platinum. Maybe iridium coins would sound even more impressive. If we're gonna mint trillion dollar coins, they better be made out of something IMPRESSIVE. Let's not cut corners here. That might be penny-wise but pound-foolish.

And the heaviest, I seem to recall a cubic foot of osmium weighs 1400 pounds? (or was it 1700 pounds?)

Thx

Um, aren't 'heaviest' and 'densest' perfect synonyms in this context?

The density of osmium (at its melting point) is almost exactly 20 grams per cubic centimeter (as per my dog-eared copy of The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics). Alas, it is too late at night for me to be willing to perform the metric to stupid-English systems of measurement to figure out how much a cubic foot of osmium would weigh. You can do it if you want!

The density of osmium (at its melting point) is almost exactly 20 grams per cubic centimeter (as per my dog-eared copy of The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics). Alas, it is too late at night for me to be willing to perform the metric to stupid-English systems of measurement to figure out how much a cubic foot of osmium would weigh. You can do it if you want!

Yes, I believe density and weight among elements are directly proportional. (I wasn't trying to say they are different.)

(I used to use that handbook quite often for the tables.^)

Oh, we could do the math, but I'm pretty sure it's 1400 lbs per cubic foot.

(In an old sci-fi story of mine I envisioned a relatively small robotic cop that is made of osmium, it grabs on to your wrist when arresting you while you try and lug thousands of pounds around. You ain't going nowhere! )

Yes, I believe density and weight among elements are directly proportional. (I wasn't trying to say they are different.)

(I used to use that handbook quite often for the tables.^)

Oh, we could do the math, but I'm pretty sure it's 1400 lbs per cubic foot.

(In an old sci-fi story of mine I envisioned a relatively small robotic cop that is made of osmium, it grabs on to your wrist when arresting you while you try and lug thousands of pounds around. You ain't going nowhere! )

Thx

Being lazy tonight, I just Googled on it, and your answer is VERY close. They say a cubic foot of osmium would weigh 1410.25 pounds.

But they are also using a measure of the density of osmium of 22.59 grams per cubic centimeter, which is certainly substantially higher than the CRC value of 20 grams per cubic centimeter. That was at the melting point of osmium, which is also rather high. Must be much denser at room temperature, I guess.

Being lazy tonight, I just Googled on it, and your answer is VERY close. They say a cubic foot of osmium would weigh 1410.25 pounds.

But they are also using a measure of the density of osmium of 22.59 grams per cubic centimeter, which is certainly substantially higher than the CRC value of 20 grams per cubic centimeter. That was at the melting point of osmium, which is also rather high. Must be much denser at room temperature, I guess.

That is often what I would use the tables for, all those concerning temperature... boiling points, points of vaporization etc.

At the time I was trying to come up with a new theory on the structure of matter...

Regardless of what we see, I have never liked the notion of an orbiting electron, and if there are no electrons in the form we currently believe, then the whole picture we have of the atom is probably very much off too.

Spent years pondering and tinkering and working my HP calculator... didn't come up with a really good theory on the real structure, but did come up with some ideas.

For instance, force may not emanate mysteriously from within a particle... what I am thinking is that the "force" comes from outside the particle... I think of the particle itself as a "resultant" of those outside forces.

All money is based upon one key element, desire for that money to be held or used in exchange. When it no longer retains this desire, it goes away quickly even if it is commodity based because almost all commodities are valued either subjectively or by scarcity. I suggest another unit of currency that could serve two purposes. One, it is scarce and two, getting it serves a higher purpose. What is that commodity? Moon rocks, Mars soil or some other planets soil. Say we said all money was backed by the soil on Mars. It would unleash a technology race like no other that ever existed. I only say this in jest because gold is just about as silly as a moon rock.